Homophobes lose a round

[JesusA (imported)]

Christian couple lose foster ruling over views on homosexuality

The Telegraph (UK)

February 28, 2011

A Christian couple morally opposed to homosexuality because of their faith lost a landmark High Court battle today over the right to become foster carers.

Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65, from Oakwood, Derby, went to court after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a "homosexual lifestyle" was acceptable.

The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers but withdrew their application, believing they would never be approved because of the social worker's attitude to their religious beliefs.

Today they asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values.

But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

Outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, where the decision was given, Mrs Johns stood alongside her husband as she said: "We are extremely distressed at what the judges have ruled today.

"All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents.

"But because we are Christians, with mainstream Christian views on sexual ethics, we are apparently unsuitable as foster parents.

"We are unsure how we can continue the application process following the court's ruling today.

"We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, Christian views on sexual ethics.

"The judges have suggested that our views might harm children.

"We have been told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that our moral views may 'infect' a child.

"We do not believe that this is so. We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.

"Worst of all, a vulnerable child has now likely missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home at a time when there are so few people willing to foster or adopt.

"We feel excluded and that there is no place for us in society.

"We have not received justice. We believe that an independent inquiry is needed to look into this."

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity, said: 'We're delighted that the High Court's landmark decision has favoured 21st-century decency above 19th-century prejudice.

"In any fostering case the interests of the 60,000 children in care should override the bias of any prospective parent."

"Thankfully, Mr and Mrs Johns's out-dated views aren't just out of step with the majority of people in modern Britain, but those of many Christians too. If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service, you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone."

The Christian Legal Centre reacted to today's ruling with dismay and warned "fostering by Christians is now in doubt".

The organisation said the judges had effectively ruled "homosexual 'rights' trump freedom of conscience in the UK".

The judges had stated that "biblical Christian beliefs may be 'inimical' to children, and implicitly upheld an Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHC) submission that children risk being 'infected' by Christian moral beliefs".

The CLC said the judgment summary "sends out the clear message that orthodox Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents".

Andrea Minichiello Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern and the CLC, said: "The judges have claimed that there was no discrimination against the Johns as Christians because they were being excluded from fostering due to their sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs.

"This claim that their moral beliefs on sex have nothing to do with their Christian faith is a clear falsehood made in order to justify their ruling.

"How can judges get away with this?

"What has happened to the Johns is part of a wider trend seen in recent years.

"The law has been increasingly interpreted by judges in a way which favours homosexual rights over freedom of conscience.

"Britain is now leading Europe in intolerance to religious belief."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ality.html

.

[Riverwind (imported)]

And its about time,

Three cheers for the judges in this case, as this is a couple who with all the right intentions would be bad for any child.

The court made the right decision.

River

[Losethem (imported)]

From the article:

"We feel excluded and that there is no place for us in society...

"

All I have to say to Eunice and Owen Johns is you now know how we homosexuals feel. People like you do everything short of saying we're not human, and I'm being generous in that assessment.

Not so great when you have to walk around in those shoes, is it?

[Batman (imported)]

Just wondering...maybe a religious person can answer this one..

Is it just the sexual act that is offensive? If 2 men or 2 women were together and remained celibate yet committed to each other is THAT okay?

I'm not asking to be sarcastic, just an honest question.

[raymar2020 (imported)]

While christain values may be good for children, the job of a good foster parent is to help to guide a troubled child into a place where they can find happiness, even if that means living as a gay person.

In the DC area , there is actually a private agency that works to place openly gay foster kids in homes with openly gay men/women. The belief is that they can get a positive role model that way .

Raymar

[nullorchis (imported)]

For me, belief is not justification for doing that kind of placement.

Such placement would be experimental in the HOPE that it is beneficial.

might suspect that such placement would have no statistical difference as biological kids are raised in all kinds of environments. There are so many variables that it seems like it would be impossible to predict success or failure. Love is love. Gay kids with accepting straight parents, straight kids with gay parents, gay with gay, straight with straight I see no reason to use sexual orientation as a barrier. Bigotry, hatred, acceptance, love, honesty, and other human values would be qualifiers, not orientation. While reference to orientation would need to be included, using that as a primary link for placement might be questionable. In any case, I remain hopeful; just can't believe.

[Riverwind (imported)]

From the article:

"We feel excluded and

that there is no place for us in society...

"

All I have to say to Eunice and Owen Johns is you now know how we homosexuals feel. People like you do everything short of saying we're not human, and I'm being generous in that assessment.

Not so gre

at when you have to walk around in those shoes, is it?

That is for sure, if those who claim to be so religious were really, then gay/straight would not make any difference.

Bigots are bigots doesn't matter what the wrapper looks like.

River

[DeaconBlues (imported)]

I concur with River when he says "three cheers for the judges" in his post above.

At first, I almost felt sorry for the elderly Christian couple who were trying to offer a service to their community, who were trying to do something good and kind and take in children who needed a home... At first that is.

On further reflection, it came to me that there are some children who are clearly transgendered, some who are clearly gay, and some who are clearly just kids who want to have a normal healthy childhood WITHOUT all the adult crap being dumped on them. To put a vulnerable child, of ANY sexual orientation into the "loving care" of some narrow minded bigot, THAT IS CLEARLY CHILD ABUSE.

Even totally "normal" obviously straight children, are NOT well cared for when their adult role model starts dumping adult shit (e.g. racism, politics, gay-bashing, sexism) into their minds.

Again, THREE CHEERS FOR THE JUDGES IN THIS CASE!

[jab (imported)]

That is for sure, if those who claim to be so religious were really, then gay/straight would not make any difference.

Bigots are bigots doesn't matter what the wrapper looks like.

River

I believe it's the evangelical notion that "we are here to help look after the community" combined with "this homosexual behavior is bad for the community". There are a lot of busy-bodies in the fundamentalist churches, looking to help everyone else stay close to God. It is a hell-hole at best.

[XxEunuchEmoBoyxX (imported)]

I saw this artical and it really cheered me up, we used to fight now they have to fight. The world might one day be slightly ok. Why cant everyone follow the rule, if there is no respect in it, its wrong. If that child was gay he would have been worse off having to hide himself from them. Hope the child is given to a loving family.

-Loki